Replies

I'm sorry I just don't see that. The main complaint is that there is bias in custody awarding. The only way to be fair then is joint custody,

You're wrong right there. Things can be fair without joint custody being the default. And things would be FAR less than fair if joint custody were mandatory. There's got to be a way to say JPC isn't right in a given case. If there isn't you're just replacing one problem with another. I don't care about the complaints I care about the actual problems. The actual problem is that the system favors women over men just about every step of the way. That's not a complaint that's the fact. Things are getting better though, just need to make sure they don't backslide.

Huh? Of course JPC isn't right in every case. With presumptive JPC there would be a way to say joint custody isn't right on a case by case basis. Here's how it would work:

1. 50/50 JPC is the default. Everyone divorcing would know that up front. They KNOW as a given they will not get sole custody unless they can prove that they should have it for one reason or another. If they can't prove that or if they can't agree on an alternative arrangement, then it's 50/50. Period.

2. If a parent did not want 50% joint custody he/she would have to petition the court to lessen their obligation under JPC. If a parent wanted to move away from the other co-parent, he/she would have to petition the court to relinquish joint custody and to change their status BY REQUEST from shared custody to Non Custodial. There would be a clear choice made and it would be documented. ___Parent A wants to move 1,000 miles away and is petitioning the court to release him/her from the presumptive JPC order. ___ Release granted ___ Release denied. (Judge checks one).

3. If one parent was not meeting his/her joint custody obligations ie not taking responsibilty for the kids at least 50% of the time, feeding, shopping, school activities, extra curricular activities, housing etc... then the other parent has an actionable claim for compensation for his/her time aka child support.

4. Both parents would have to agree on any alternative arrangements to JPC and stick to them otherwise the default JPC would be imposed by the courts by defalut. For example, lets say they agree that the mother should have full time custody and the father pays _x_ amount in CS and gets _x_ days of visitation. Then if the mother obstructs the vistitation the father has to go to court. If they cannot reach an agreement and stick to it, then PRESTO, the father gets 50% joint custody. This give the mother incentive to meet the originally agreed upon parameters. Likewise if the father doesn't pay child support, the mother could then petition the court and if the situation was not resolved, then PRESTO, the father is required to take 50% custody (even if that means he has to move) or pay a fine. This gives the father incentive to meet the originally agreed upon parameters.

4. The thing is that parenting takes time and effort. If you do not wish to put in that time and effort, then you should have to declare that up front. You'd have to go to a court and say "I don't want 50% custody. Here are the arrangement that I want______. My co-parent either ___does or ___ does not agree. Check one. If it they don't agree, then the default 50% custody kicks in. This gives people the incentive to cooperate and meet their obligations OR ELSE the defalut kicks in, regardless of what other arrangements either parent may want. So it is in the best interest of the parents to get along and meet their obligations, otherwise the court will step in and impose things on them one or the other or both of them don't want.

Presumptive JPC would be the fairest most motivating thing anyone could come up with to stop all BS that goes on now. It makes it chrystal clear. You either want to be fair and equal in parental obligations with your co-parent or you don't. Choose one.

If you don't want if fair and equal, then we will have it on record which parent doesn't wish to play fair. Everything out in the open, no one can hide behind ambiguity and vagueness. Stand up in front of the court and state your intentions up front regarding your kids. You either want JPC or you don't.

If you'd rather move away for a job than stay and parent your kids, great. At least we have it on record. If you want full custody because you hate your ex-spouse. Fine. We have it on record that you are not agreeable to shared parenting. If you refuse to do your fair 50% hands-on parenting. Okey dokey, we'll have the notes on file that you were not available for parenting 300 days out of 365. If you want the kids only on holidays, that will be documented as well. Let's get it all out in the open, no hiding.

Yes, the system probably favors women right now. But to what degree? I want it known exactly who did what, when, where and how. I want it known who wants to be fair and who doesn't. If it turns out women are being unfair, fine, let's document that. If it turns out that more men don't want JPC or sole custody then fine, let's document that. I don't care either way except I'd like the real truth to come out. Right now all we have is finger pointing. And on that FR and NOW agree, they want the status quo to remain so they can continue to point fingers.

Presumptive JPC is the only way the truth will be known.

Things can be fair without joint custody being the default. And things would be FAR less than fair if joint custody were mandatory.

First, there's a difference between presumptive joint physical custody and mandatory joint physical custody. The latter would seem to force it even if one parent is either unfit or just plain doesn't want it. I support a presumption of joint physical custody except where one parent can be proven unfit, defined as when a parent presents a danger of abuse or neglect. Also, should parents come to a voluntary parenting-time agreement that both agree to, that should supercede presumptive JPC.

The actual problem is that the system favors women over men just about every step of the way.

True. What no one ever talks about is that as much as feminist man-hating contributed to this, the Victorian idolatry of motherhood AND the traditionalist split of mothers and fathers into Industrial Age caregiver/provider roles contributed a lot too.

Things are getting better though, just need to make sure they don't backslide.

Exactly what on Earth do you base that mis-statement on?